Does "Naked" mean Without Armour?

[Dillzie]

Yes

[marvises]

they fought in the nude to intimidate their enemy and also it was better for maneuverability and they were known has "heavy infantry" because sometimes they wield 2 hand swords or a sword and shield which gave them excellent charging techniques.

[M. Demetrius]

I'd post a picture of myself wearing armor, wearing no armor, and wearing no armor and no clothing to illustrate the differences, but I'd probably get in trouble...
:roll:
...and scare the children, too.
:?

[Matthew Amt]

they fought in the nude to intimidate their enemy

Absolutely, as I noted above.

and also it was better for maneuverability

In what way? I've never found clothing to inhibit movement, and most of the armor of the time does not, either. The vast majority of warriors who were able to afford armor wore it!

and they were known has "heavy infantry" because sometimes they wield 2 hand swords or a sword and shield which gave them excellent charging techniques.

Most people use the term "heavy infantry" simply to refer to troops who fight hand-to-hand in some sort of formation, while "light infantry" refers to those who use mostly missile weapons. I'm not sure they are ancient terms at all. I have yet to see any evidence for warriors fighting with 2 swords in Roman times--combat was based on use of the shield. *Especially* when charging! Not having a shield would make you the prime javelin target for a lot of your opponents.

By the way, before the moderators can jump on you, forum rules require you to put your real first name in your signature. Click on the link above for "User Control Panel", then on "Profile" at left, and you'll find a place to make a signature.

Vale,

Matthew

[marvises]

and also it was better for maneuverability

In what way? I've never found clothing to inhibit movement, and most of the armor of the time does not, either. The vast majority of warriors who were able to afford armor wore it!

and they were known has "heavy infantry" because sometimes they wield 2 hand swords or a sword and shield which gave them excellent charging techniques.

Most people use the term "heavy infantry" simply to refer to troops who fight hand-to-hand in some sort of formation, while "light infantry" refers to those who use mostly missile weapons. I'm not sure they are ancient terms at all. I have yet to see any evidence for warriors fighting with 2 swords in Roman times--combat was based on use of the shield. *Especially* when charging! Not having a shield would make you the prime javelin target for a lot of your opponents.

By the way, before the moderators can jump on you, forum rules require you to put your real first name in your signature. Click on the link above for "User Control Panel", then on "Profile" at left, and you'll find a place to make a signature.

Vale,

Matthew

the clothing at that time was not that aerodynamic so taht held them back and the armor it was a little heavy not really but it would also slow the soldiers down and your right about being a target for the javelin

[Patrick M]

First of all read and take a close look to the source.

The ancient text greek or roman writers) are, in my opinion, not relevant in most parts. These texts are contradictory the celtic source (in this case just iconographic sources). Roman writers produce a barbarian clischee of naked or half naked barbarians in all texts and drawings. The barbarian wear a beard or moustache , have a trouser and of course is half naked.

The figure of Hirschlanden as mentioned above follows the greek or eturian statue type of a kroisos. The spanish fibula is celt-iberia, not celtic. The other celtic illustration, like the famous scabbard grave 994 hallstatt, shows warriors in trouseres and tunics with shoes. The same on all situlas, the late laténe warrior statues, the southern statues from glanum and roquepertuse and so on.

Just my opinion

[marvises]

First of all read and take a close look to the source.

The ancient text greek or roman writers) are, in my opinion, not relevant in most parts. These texts are contradictory the celtic source (in this case just iconographic sources). Roman writers produce a barbarian clischee of naked or half naked barbarians in all texts and drawings. The barbarian wear a beard or moustache , have a trouser and of course is half naked.

The figure of Hirschlanden as mentioned above follows the greek or eturian statue type of a kroisos. The spanish fibula is celt-iberia, not celtic. The other celtic illustration, like the famous scabbard grave 994 hallstatt, shows warriors in trouseres and tunics with shoes. The same on all situlas, the late laténe warrior statues, the southern statues from glanum and roquepertuse and so on.

Just my opinion

well i wouldnt know much about the barbarian civilizations since i mainly study and research the roman way of life and their practices....